Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Community Matters (RJS)

Community Matters (RJS)

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:07 pm by RJS

Community Matters (RJS) 2015-03-13T22:07:41-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Jonathan Hill, an assistant professor of sociology at Calvin College, recently released the results of a National Study of Religion & Human Origins. This study was funded by the Evolution and Christian Faith grants program at BioLogos and you can find a link to the full report with a summary of the major findings in Jonathan’s post The Recipe For Creationism on the BioLogos Forum.

Most surveys that probe questions of science and faith, including beliefs about creation and human origins, use a small set of frustratingly limited questions. Well, frustrating for those of us who want to nuance all of the possibilities, finding none of them useful without qualification. A recent Gallup poll on views of the bible illustrates the impact that limiting choices can have on the results. The limitation is frustrating for sociologists as well. Jonathan Hill’s study aims to better understand the beliefs of Americans concerning human origins through a much more detailed survey that can parse out positions with more accuracy and explore the importance of social context on these positions. From the results Hill develops four categories – Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, Atheistic Evolutionists, and Unsure and uses these categories to explore the variety of views, the confidence with which they are held, and the importance of social context.

In one way, both creationists and atheistic evolutionists are the same. Majorities of both groups say that science and religion are ultimately incompatible. When science and religion conflict, one group favors religious ways of knowing (primarily a literal reading of scripture) and the other group favors scientific way of knowing (trusting the mainstream scientific establishment to provide accurate information). Only theistic evolutionists oppose this conflict model in any substantial number. (p. 2)

There is much to dig into in this report, and I’ll probably come back to it again in a later post – but here I want to concentrate on two points.

First, Americans often have relatively muddied and not entirely consistent views. A corollary to this is the fact that many Americans appear to have relatively little understanding of science. Approximately 39% of creationists, 25% of theistic evolutionists, 22% of atheistic evolutionists and 16% of the unsure believe in recent creation/emergence of humans (within last 10,000 years). The percentage for creationists seems rather low, but the percentage for atheistic evolutionists seems amazingly high, only 64% were sure that humans emerged more than 10,000 years ago. As Hill puts it “many people, both creationists and evolutionists, are simply uncertain about the timeframe.” (p. 12) This is somewhat surprising to the atheistic evolutionists – who generally base their view on science and trust of the scientific establishment. But perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising – trust in an authority, whether religious or scientific, does not require an understanding of the details. But the importance that trust of an authority plays leads into the second point.

We are social creatures. More significant is the importance of social context when it comes to the beliefs that people hold concerning creation, evolution, and human origins. Hill introduces part two of his report mapping the social context:

Studies in the sociology of knowledge emphasize how our particular social location – the bundle of social identities and group memberships that give us our unique place in broader society – shapes even our most “common sense” interpretations of the world around us. What seems natural and normal to us cannot be assumed to be so for others. We all belong to communities of belief that shape how we see our world. Consequently, we will work hard to maintain certain interpretations of the world against threats because our very identity and social relationships are at stake.(p. 18)

This is interesting in light of the view of Simon Blackburn in the post Tuesday What is Religion Anyway?. According to Blackburn the function of religion is to unite adherents into a moral community. The religious rites, rituals, and mysteries only exist to unite the tribe or congregation. Religion is a kind of “social glue.” Blackburn makes an important point, and one we do well to bear in mind.

The social context in which people develop and hold their beliefs concerning human origins and a myriad of other things mean means that better education alone will have little success in persuading the majority to give up these deeply held beliefs.

While quality science education is a worthy goal in any society, there is little indication that it makes a substantial difference in convincing individuals that their views on human origins are wrong. At a psychological level, the science education model assumes humans are fundamentally rational actors that simply need more and better information. But this does not fit with the evidence. (p. 18-19)

Social context matters. Hill reports that 68% of those who are categorized as creationists report that all or most of their immediate family share their belief on origins, and 56% report that all or most of their closets friends share the same belief. 66% belong to a congregation that rejects human evolution. About 46% feel that changing their beliefs would cause increased disagreements with fellow church members and with religious leaders. All of these percentages are consistently higher than those reported by evolutionists. Both theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists report that ca. 45% of their immediate family and 48% of their closest friends share the same view of human origins. Only 22 to 25% of theistic evolutionists feel that a change in their views would cause increased disagreements in church – the social pressure here is less, although there may be other social pressures playing a role.

Hill concludes this section:

The results are consistent. Creationists are more likely to be in congregations with a settled anti-evolution position, more likely to hear about this from the pulpit (although not more likely to informally talk about this with congregants), and more likely to experience social pressure from other members and religious leaders to keep their current beliefs. (p. 25)

Although individual stories vary, in general schools alone do not provide a community that undermines the social context of family, friends, and church. Humans are not rational actors making decisions based on factual information. The social cohesion of community is a powerful force, and information is not enough.

There is much more to be learned from this study, but this is enough for now.

From my perspective as a scientist, a professor, a Christian, a theistic evolutionist, who rejects the conflict model between science and Christian faith, and would like to help the church develop a healthier approach to science, many areas of this report raise important questions.

Simon Blackburn sees the function of religion as social glue. Absent in his appraisal is the possibility that any religion can be true. As Christians we certainly believe that the Christian faith is true – and that there are sound reasons for this faith. A genuine reality behind Christian faith, however, does not negate the truth of his assessment of the power of religion in forming a social context – a social glue to form a cohesive community.

How do we know when a belief is true and when it is an “artifact” of a social context?

Is the approach to the Bible that leads to a young earth creationist position an “artifact” of a social context?

I’m not sure that artifact is the right word to use here – and welcome better suggestions. It seems clear that there are aspects of Christian belief and practice that are more localized in time and space alongside aspects that are universal. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” is a universal. The literalism of modern evangelical Protestantism is not necessarily a universal. Or is it?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Science and Faith

Previous Post

December 4, 2014

The Character of the King

Next Post

December 4, 2014 You Vote

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Romans teaches that creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE